Pittsburgh City Council Public Hearing on Downtown TRID (Transit Revitalization Investment District) Implementation Plan - June 30, 2026

Note: The transcript states the hearing occurred on Thursday, June 25, 2026, but the provided meeting date is June 30, 2026. This summary uses the date supplied with the source material.

The Pittsburgh City Council held a public hearing on Bill 531, which would authorize the adoption of the Downtown Pittsburgh Transit Revitalization Investment District (TRID) Implementation Plan and related agreements. The TRID would capture incremental tax revenues from new development in downtown, the Strip District, and the North Shore over 40 years to fund public infrastructure and private real estate projects. The hearing featured extensive public testimony, overwhelmingly opposed to the plan, followed by comments from council members. No vote was taken; a post-agenda fact-finding session was announced.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Jason Rona (commercial real estate attorney, Meyer Onkovic and Scott; Treasurer, Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership) – Supported the TRID, arguing it preserves the existing tax base, signals to private investors, creates a dedicated funding stream for lighting, sidewalks, small business support, residential conversions, affordable housing, and public infrastructure. He described it as a critical moment to convert downtown from an office district to a 24/7 neighborhood.
• Speaker from the Building Trades (name not given) – Supported the TRID in principle but stressed the need for area standard wages and condemned the exploitation of workers through tax fraud models. He urged developers to change business models to ensure jobs benefit city residents.
• Jackie Smith (Park Place resident; board member, Human Rights City Alliance) – Opposed the TRID, calling it a gamble with taxpayer money. She questioned the lack of evidence for benefits, the prioritization of downtown over other neighborhoods, the absence of transparency, and the placement of decision-making in an unelected body. She argued trickle-down economics does not work.
• Jeremiah Waldrup (Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership; Friendship resident) – Supported the TRID, emphasizing its potential to accelerate office-to-residential conversions, double downtown’s residential population by 2035, and fund infrastructure like the Smithfield Street reconstruction. He described the TRID as the right tool for this moment.
• Callie DeSabato (North Side resident; member, Northside Neighborhood Assembly) – Opposed the TRID, citing distrust of federal and local spending, lack of public awareness, and insufficient investment in affordable housing. She questioned the split between public infrastructure and private projects, and the fast-tracking of a 40-year deal.
• Matty (Maddie?) McGrady (Highland Park renter; co-chair, Pittsburgh Housing Justice Table) – Opposed, citing lack of transparency, no public engagement, and that only 20% of borrowed money would go to public infrastructure while 80% goes to private projects. She called it a bailout of private real estate with no strings attached.
• Alysha Grishman (Uptown resident; founder/director, Access Mob Pittsburgh; board member, Pittsburghers for Public Transit) – Opposed, emphasizing the TRID’s vague transit language, the 20% public infrastructure allocation, and the need to focus on all 90 neighborhoods, not just downtown.
• Dean McJanis (South Side resident; board member, Pittsburghers for Public Transit) – Opposed, arguing the TRID is not primarily transit-related as required by law; only 20% is earmarked for transit, and the plan lacks specifics. He called it an inappropriate use of the TRID program.
• Laura Chew Weens (Executive Director, Pittsburghers for Public Transit; Shadyside) – Opposed, stating the TRID would take out a huge loan to hand tens of millions to developers with no public obligations, gambling on future tax revenue. She noted concurrent budget crises in the city, schools, and county, and urged that public investments be determined through the annual budget with public input. She thanked Councilwoman Gross for daylighting the proposal and Councilwoman Warwick for stating she would vote no.
• Laura Perkins (Bloomfield resident) – Opposed for three reasons: lack of transparency (no required public meeting or planning study); the city and schools cannot afford the tax diversion; and the TRID does not align with the original state law’s intent. She cited the Allegheny Institute of Public Policy’s critique of the North Shore TRID as failing to address population loss or job growth.
• Liretta (Loretta?) Penn (Hill District resident; co-chair, Pittsburgh Human Rights City Alliance; member, Hill District Consensus Group) – Opposed, calling it supply-side or trickle-down economics. She referenced the displacement of 8,000 families from the Hill District due to past downtown development and urged a pause for more public input.
• Marcia Bandies (Squirrel Hill resident) – Opposed the use of Pittsburgh Public Schools’ real estate taxes for the TRID. She argued that downtown apartments do not serve the school district’s mission and that funds should be used for student outcomes, not senior housing downtown.
• Danielle Wenner (Polish Hill resident; Associate Director, Center for Ethics and Policy, Carnegie Mellon University) – Opposed, arguing the TRID would carve the city into hyper-local tax bases, entrenching economic segregation. She noted that growth in the Strip District relies on citywide infrastructure and workers, but the proposal would withhold revenues from other neighborhoods. She also criticized the lack of public engagement.
• Matthew Cartier (Greenfield resident) – Opposed, calling the plan “balconizing” city tax revenues, concentrating wealth in the Golden Triangle. He urged council to maintain oversight, questioned the lack of specific projects, and criticized the haste and lack of transparency.
• John Cooper (Park Place resident; nurse; parent of PPS students) – Opposed, citing the scale of needs he sees as a school nurse – hunger, lack of healthcare, evictions, and rising foreclosures. He supported recent tax increases but found it appalling to divert $200 million to developers over 40 years while neighborhoods have sinkholes and urgent needs. He directly questioned Councilman Mosley about benefits to his district.
• Alvarna Johnson (East Liberty resident) – Opposed, calling the $200 million a burden on future generations, emphasizing the need for transparency and public input.
• Bill McDowell (North Side resident) – Opposed, urging council to invest future tax dollars in their districts, not downtown developers. He asked what stipulations and oversight would exist, and noted the plan is vague on transit.
• Andrew Hussain (speaker) – Opposed, calling the process “horrendous and unlawful,” lacking transit focus, and urging a delay or rejection.
• Greg Hamrick (unregistered speaker) – Opposed, stating he learned about the TRID on Reddit, called it corporate welfare, and urged a vote no or delay.
• Tim Stevens (Chairman/CEO, Black Political Empowerment Project) – Opposed the use of public dollars for private benefit, suggesting a meeting with organizations to work out a more fair resolution.
• Rick Smith (North Oakland resident) – Not in support, called for a more cohesive vision from the mayor and URA.

Discussion Items

• Councilman Wilson – Thanked speakers and noted the URA’s presence. He acknowledged the criticism of public engagement and pointed to the upcoming post-agenda fact-finding session. He argued that downtown provides 25% of the city’s real estate tax base, supporting services like speed humps, community health, and safety. He explained that the first tranche of bonds ($25–40 million) would be for projects already under construction (e.g., across from PNC Park) and that URA has a zero-default record on TIFs. He stressed that without supporting downtown, the city would have to keep raising taxes.
• Councilman Sharlin – Expressed support, noting he serves on the URA board and voted for the plan twice. He echoed that 25% of property taxes come from downtown, and without a strong downtown, the city cannot fund programs in other neighborhoods. He said investment in downtown is essential to avoid raising taxes on residents in Allentown and Knoxville.
• Councilwoman Gross – Thanked the public for their input. She raised several unanswered questions: Why 40 years when previous TIFs were 20 years? Why does the capture area include three neighborhoods but the spending is only in one? What power does council have to impose stipulations? Can council terminate the agreement if bonds are outstanding? She also noted that Councilwoman Warwick had to leave for an emergency board meeting but had previously stated she would vote no.

Key Outcomes

• No vote was taken on Bill 531.
• A post-agenda fact-finding session was announced (hosted by Councilman Mosley in coordination with the URA) to answer outstanding questions.
• Council members indicated they would continue to study the proposal and seek more public input.
• The hearing highlighted deep divisions between supporters (downtown business interests, some unions) and opponents (housing justice, transit advocates, neighborhood residents, and school district supporters).
• The public record will include the many concerns raised about transparency, the 40-year term, the 20% public infrastructure allocation, the lack of a planning study, and the potential negative impact on city and school budgets.